I really liked Man of Steel, Zack Snyder’s 2013 reboot of Superman: I liked how it gave him soul and tragedy and inner conflict like we had never quite seen before in the character. (At least onscreen. I cannot claim to have in-depth knowledge of the character’s long and varied history in print.) The son of Krypton we saw there didn’t enjoy the powers he possessed, and he hesitated to wield them. If it seemed as if he went overboard in the end, finally acquiescing to use his strength and abilities to fight Zod — laying waste to much of Metropolis in the process — it was at least understandable, from our perspective, why he did so: Zod had to be stopped, and whatever collateral damage was inflicted was nothing compared to what Zod would have done had he been left to rampage.

Of course it still would have been horrible to be in town on that day! So it would be understandable, too, if the people of Metropolis did not look on Superman with kindness, after Zod. Yet apparently most of them worship him, as Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice opens. There is a statue of Superman, many times larger than life, near a memorial wall upon which are inscribed the names of “The Heroes” of that terrible day… and it’s clear that those “heroes” are the innocents killed as skyscrapers toppled in the battle. Is this wishful-thinking valorization of poor schmoes who had the dumb luck to be in the wrong place at the wrong time who died for nothing? Are the people of Metropolis and the rest of the planet fools to venerate Superman?

Such certainly seems to be the gist of things in BvS. For it presents us with a Batman — though at first only as his Bruce Wayne alter ego — who seethes with horror at Superman’s unstoppable destructive capabilities and holds the stupid proles who venerate him in contempt… a contempt that it is difficult to dismiss when we witness Superman kill almost unthinkingly, reflexively, and in no noble cause. Has everyone been duped by Superman? Has Superman been seduced by his own power? Such ideas could make for a truly provocative superhero story! (Though probably one that would have Superman purists up in arms.) But these are not, alas, questions that interest Zack Snyder (Sucker Punch, Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole). Nor do the potentially intriguing questions, the serious stuff that has always underlain pulp comic-book stories, that Wayne’s objections to Superman initally raise: What is the nature of the relationship between humans and a godlike alien? How far can such an alien be trusted?

What is this movie, then? It doesn’t feel like a sequel to Man of Steel, with its emo ET Boy Scout. Damn if it doesn’t feel, completely unironically and unawares, like a movie from the world in which the superhero-cynical Watchmen was set (which Snyder also brought to the big screen): cold, cruel, borderline incoherent in its testosterone-fueled rage and paranoia, misogynist, paternalistic… fascist, even. And not in any way that feels right or good or even vaguely interesting. This is a movie that doesn’t seem to realize that one of its putative heroes, Bruce Wayne/Batman (Ben Affleck: Gone Girl, Runner Runner), shares the same goal with its clear villain, Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg: American Ultra, Rio 2): to destroy Superman (Henry Cavill: The Man from U.N.C.L.E., The Cold Light of Day). Luthor actually suggests to Wayne that they team up on something, what with both of them being scientifically minded billionaire genuises… and though it’s plain that Luthor doesn’t realize that Wayne is Batman, that suggestion hangs over the rest of the movie: Why don’t they just team up? (Their traditional roles in the mythos, on different sides of the good/bad divide, is not a good enough reason why not, certainly not based on what we see here.)

And yet BvS cannot even commit to its brutal vision of Batman, who channels war criminal Dick Cheney — applying his appalling “one-percent doctrine” to Superman — and has apocalyptic nightmares about the Man of Steel. The thing that eventually brings Batman around to siding with Superman in an even bigger battle (one that — *sigh* — destroys some more of Metropolis) is the thing that finally made me guffaw out loud, and to give up on this movie when I had still been reserving the tiniest bit of hope that it might be salvaged. It is not the fact that respected and adventurous investigative journalist Lois Lane (Amy Adams: American Hustle, Her) exists in this movie solely to be a damsel in distress to be rescued by Superman, or that the most exciting bit of action that Diana Prince/Wonder Women (Gal Gadot: Triple 9, Furious 7) gets here involves downloading files that Bruce Wayne has emailed to her, but it is related to how women in this movie are nothing more than vectors that allow men to experience powerful emotion. Screenwriters Chris Terrio (Argo, Heights) and David S. Goyer (Man of Steel, The Dark Knight Rises) are to be derided for taking a coincidence in the backstories of Superman and Batman and turning it into the most risible example of damselling, and of women as supporting characters to men’s stories, that I think I have ever seen on the big screen. If this is what it takes to make superheroes reconsider their perspectives, then we have no superheroes.

So Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a movie that trashes the idea of heroes, which isn’t necessarily a bad idea. Except BvS doesn’t seem to realize that that is what it is doing, and it is very explicitly about setting up a new franchise of superhero movies. There is a deep cynicism here not only in the context of the story it is telling but also in how it thinks it can be edgy and gritty about superheroes by outright telling is we are fools to believe in them. In this case, I think any insult to the characters is outweighed by the insult to the audience. Should we love Batman and Superman, or not? Should we buy tickets to your next Justice League movie, Snyder, or not?

Like what you’re reading? Sign up for the daily digest email and get links to all the day’s new reviews and other posts.

shop to support Flick Filosopher

Independent film criticism needs your support to survive. I receive a small commission when you purchase almost anything at iTunes (globally) and at Amazon (US, Canada, UK):

For me, there was a lot going on plot-wise that could confuse some people — which the 3-hour director’s cut may help or aggravate things. The editing was haphazard in places, especially the dream-within-a-dream sequences. What puzzles me is the anger some people harbor towards Snyder for his versions of these characters… some people still complain about how Snyder ‘butchered’ Superman into a killer! You and a few others get the moral ground MOS treaded, and BvS takes great pains to show Superman saving numerous people and taking his fights to (mostly) abandoned buildings.

It’s interesting to hear your perspective on it. You bring up aspects I never really thought about, such as the tantalizing ‘what if’ of Lex and Bruce initially teaming up (that was flirted with in the 1990s animated “Superman” series). I loved the Argo-esque exchanges between Holly Hunter and Lex, pity she didn’t have more to do.

Spot-on review. I’d add that, apart from its thematic unpleasantness, it’s just incoherent on so many levels, and is undone by so, so many bad storytelling choices. As someone who really liked Man of Steel as well, and who was totally ready for this movie to answer its self-posed questions of accountability and power, I just couldn’t believe how astonishingly bad it was.

I was going to post an angry 12-point rant about some specific things that pissed me off about this film, but I don’t think I want to make myself that angry again. I’m sure most of those points are being made in abundance elsewhere.

Just one thing (SPOILERS): For a movie that revels in the destruction of so many buildings, stealing Superman’s epitaph from that of someone who CREATED so much beautiful architecture (Christopher Wren’s “If you seek his memorial, look around you”) is something I find absolutely HILARIOUS.

And one more: Yeah, I get that the monster is Doomsday. But if you don’t want to make a sucky Superman movie, maybe try not to remind people of the OTHER sucky Superman movie where Lex Luthor creates a lame creature out of Kryptonian genetic material that gets a boost from nuclear energy.

Pros: The series continues to be impeccably well cast (even Eisenberg, though you have to be able to identify all the various versions of Luthor he’s drawing from). The script does an excellent job of imbuing the fledgling DC cinematic universe with both a history and a future. The plot itself is pure comic book pulp.

Cons: the whole thing is overlong (largely due to a series of “Luthor tries to frame Superman” subplots that go nowhere), and really could stand to lighten up a bit. It definitely needed another pass, both at the script stage and in the editing room.

I had a good time, and smiled several times. But as with MoS, I’m not going to fault anyone who didn’t care for it. After all, I still shake my head that anyone got anything worthwhile out of Guardians of the Galaxy.

Pinkk

If I recall the movie, they took the fight to an abandoned area of Metropolis, showing things had been learned from MoS. All other destruction before that was the villains doing.

Nice to see a critic who finally understands there wasn’t much choice on Clark’s side of things in MoS.

As for Lois part, wasn’t expecting much there. It wasn’t a Lois Lane movie. Didn’t expect much from WW’s part either and it was so small. Had a nice intro in the movie though, as WW. To bad it was spoiled by the trailers. :p

Not sure I agree with the 1 star rating but the movie needed some work. Better than Fantastic Four but not as good as MoS.

At least I was right and Ben made a good Batman :)

Josh Lerch

Batman is finally the Dark Knight so that part of the movie works. Affleck does a good job of shutting up and letting Batman be Batman but he doesn’t bring anything special to the character. Superman is as boring as ever and losing his hair. The movie is incoherent and full of lazy writing: If women are there to be boring love story filler, victims, and male fantasy idols just keep them out of it. Lois Lane and her pretentious “I’m a JOURNALIST so I’m better than you” attitude is cliché and boring…no one buys into her and Superman’s “love” going back to the lame attempt at it in MoS. I can’t find any reason she’s in the movie except I guess they had to find enough screen time because…union contracts. But you do almost get to see her topless in the tub…so there’s that. The whole kidnapping/mother idea is a complete eye roller and waste of screen time….”Martha”….apparently the whole movie turns on that one name…again absolutely ridiculous. The way too young and waifish Wonder Girl kinda does ok, but they wreck her cool parts in the movie with the horrible way they obviously and clumsily force in her theme song like she’s a WWE Diva. Though not technically a woman the weenie cast as Lex Luthor is absurd…might as well drawn in SpongeBob Squarepants it would have looked and sounded just as good. The destruction is pointless, the Batman fight sequence to save Martha is the best in the movie, and the only thrill I got was when Wonder Waif had Doomsday lassoed up; at least one hero stayed focused on the important stuff at the climax. The ending was probably 2 movies too soon. Can’t do it again and now you have yet another mini reboot in a DC world that does nothing but reboot everything.

Frank

Amen brother! Spot on with the Superman IV reference there.

Frank

You could teach these people freaking out that not everyone likes the film a thing or two about diplomacy. A well argued point, even if I don’t agree with every argument made.

Tony Richards

Fascinating. It’s reviews like this that make reading your articles such a pleasure.

Paolo Neil Navata

I’m surprised I liked the movie. Not so much though. Maybe because I have low expectations. More of a fanboy of marvel or disney. Because Disney knows how to tell or show good stories. At least, Disney animation. They practically uses the same formula. And this more or less is also shown in the MCU.

Anyhow, I was hooked at the beginning of the BvS movie because of how they depicted Batman: That Bruce’s fear of bats, assuming that he was even afraid of bats in the first place, are not what caused his parents’ death. That the bat or bats “saved” him, hence the dream sequence where Bruce rises. That Bruce became vengeance, became the night, became Batman, just like in the animated series.

Also, there are many allegories in this movie. Either political or religious. So knowing all these would contribute to a better appreciation of what Zack was trying to do. Superman for example had to die. Not only was he battling Doomsday (an important comic book arc), but also because it was Good Friday (US release date). He needed to sacrifice himself not only to save the world, but to conquer the fear of men. Zack also admitted that he needed Superman dead so Batman can assemble the Justice League. Made sense to me.

The acts of Superman can also can also be an allegory to US unilateral intervention and nuclear or WMD capabilities, which non-allied countries fear or hate. The senate hearing can also be likened to a pontius pilate hearing. Batman beating up Superman like Roman centurions beating up Jesus. Remember how Batman carried Superman like a cross? The kryptonite spear would have delivered the final blow.

Anyways, I just saw it once. Will have to watch it again.

Biggs Darklighter

pathetic review.

LA Julian

It’s also extremely white as well as dudebroish — with minorities only as tokens held in contempt, faceless evil minions, or faceless grateful peasants — and as a result I had an epiphany today at work, thinking about who makes, and who likes, this sort of “serious” drivel:

The superhero and scifi and adventure story writers and directors who have NO hope, who create despairing dystopias in settings that are so full of “gritty grimdarkness” that they make WH40K look cheerful and breezy, in which any inkling of grounds for optimism must be trampled and spat on and set on fire and the ashes used for a latrine, all the way back to Frank Miller and Alan Moore?

All white straight men, mostly middle-class or even wealthier (or have ended up so if they didn’t start out there.) They’re the ones who see a world falling apart around them, who are terrified of the future and can’t imagine it as possibly being any better than the present, because they’re terrified of the present, too, and can only yearn for the imagined past in which they and people just like them were at the unquestioned top of the social pyramid, and then…everything changed.

And they can’t cope.

And that is the world they paint for us, and think we’re naive for saying no, wait, it HAS gotten better! Look around you — there’s LESS crime, less discrimination, less unquestioned unchallenged injustice, and we are getting better at fighting corruption every day! For us, there’s reason to hope, even as there is reason to fear backsliding.

And yet we, who remember too well when we were told that we could never be anything else than what we were born, and to hide if we were born other than straight, we can SEE it because we’re experiencing it, we’re told that WE are the naive ones because we also see cooperation in action all around us, instead of passive sheep waiting for the straight white dudebro to save us from disaster, or dog-eat-dog viciousness in the midst of it, no matter how dreadful things are in the world, and always have been.

And I don’t see any way to convince men who feel that any improvement in prospects for anyone else is taking away from their rights and safety, just because they now have a bit more competition, that that doesn’t mean their world is literally ending — thus Trump, and all that obliviously-unselfaware xenophobic demagogue ilk around the world. (See also the Bundy Standoff in the Western USA…)

And this radical patriarchal mindset explains why there cannot be any ensemble as there is in all the comics and previous film adaptations, even before MoS:DoJ killed off Jimmy Olsen after turning him into a CIA goon who manipulated Lois!

Snyder has recently admitted to being an Ayn Rand fan who aspires to remake The Fountainhead, so what we’ve got is Objectivist Superman and Objectivist Batman fighting against the Unworthy in a World of Cardboard — he even put Superman catching the bomb in the pose of the famous Rockefeller Center Atlas in NYC! Who is John Galt? Clark and Bruce, battling for the heavyweight title!

Nobody else exists, except in relation to the male antagonists — the two manly men, and the sneering, contemptuous “intellectual” foe. How can Superman be buoyed and steadied in his heroism by the admiration of humanity, when Objectivist dogma regards ordinary humans as nothing but a mass of “takers”? How can Batman find any validation in saving Gotham, when etc etc? The only way their existence can have any meaning is through each other’s recognition, and even Lex’s envy is more important than any woman’s, in their interactions.

Jurgan

Well argued, sir!

Jurgan

Interesting take. It reminds me of Lovecraft, who wrote in the 20’s just as the old European empires were starting to crumble. His fear that the “lesser races” were gaining power fit right in with his existential dread of careless, destructive gods and the meaninglessness of existence. The racism and the grim outlook on the world were inseparable.

LA Julian

Yes…and incidentally, both Lovecraftian horrors and superheroes-as-modern-myths were done right, purged of their reactionary status-quotidian baggage and recast to serve as a better axe (yet still the axe of our fathers…) for a freer, gentler age of evolving sentient apes, by the late Sir Terry Pratchett.

And even earlier, The Forbidden Planet reworked Lovecraft’s nightmares of the Old Ones from the stars into a similarly humanist parable, recasting “Alas Babylon” into the far future where spacemen discover the non-Euclidean city-state where technocrats who believed themselves civilized brought themselves down by creating energy-shoggoths that consumed them — are the “monsters from the id” Atomic Power, invented to provide us with cheap energy but instantly conceived of as a weapon, even before it left the drawing board and became a reality? or are they the fear and rage and hatred of a society that believes its left its ancestral bloodlust far in the benighted past?

Yes, of course, yes — and those strangely-shaped architects of that ancient futuristic city were just folks, like us: Look on our works, ye mighty, and despair…or else, learn from history, and do NOT repeat it!

Rorshach Sridhar

You’re full of it. They specifically state that they’re fighting on an unpopulated island, so the destruction was harmless.

Rorshach Sridhar

They not only took the fight to an abandoned island but Superman tries to take Doomsday into outer space before the dumb army prematurely nukes him back.

Pinkk

Ever notice how it’s the government keeps screwing things up in EVERY superhero movie? :p

Matt

Evidently, this woman doesn’t like men.

Danielm80

Christopher Wren wouldn’t have considered the destruction of so many buildings harmless:

” I cannot claim to have in-depth knowledge of the character’s long and varied history in print.)” why didn’t you do research than. The movie was very accurate theme wise to the comics this movie was based off of.

” when we witness Superman kill almost unthinkingly, reflexively, and in no noble cause.” He doesn’t kill anyone besides in the nightmare sequence.

” It doesn’t feel like a sequel to Man of Steel, with its emo ET Boy Scout.” Not many people would be feeling to great if someone was setting up situations that make it look like your mass murderer. I feel like you missed some key points to the movie that would have made superman a bit emotional.

“BvS cannot even commit to its brutal vision of Batman” you mean the vision of the 1986 comics The Dark Knight Returns.

“even bigger battle (one that — *sigh* — destroys some more of Metropolis)” Dont even know why this is a complaint. 1 building and the top of lexcorp were damaged. The rest was at an abandoned port in gotham and on an uninhabited island.

” Lois Lane exists in this movie solely to be a damsel in distress” And to expose the truth that superman isn’t a murderer and is being set up by someone.

” the most exciting bit of action that Diana Prince/Wonder Women gets here involves downloading files that Bruce Wayne has emailed to her” Maybe you missed her fight scene?

I disagree with basically your whole 3rd paragraph. Those are all questions asked. As stated by Batman more generally, that if there’s even a chance Superman might consider killing everyone than he could.

“cold, cruel, borderline incoherent in its testosterone-fueled rage and paranoia, misogynist, paternalistic… fascist, even”. I don’t agree with all of the adjectives here but, just like Watchmen, these are all themes in the comics this movie is based off of.

Please, do some research about the characters. The Death of Superman, and The Dark Knight Returns are not happy-go-lucky comics.This whole review seems like a bashing for this movie being something it’s not supposed to be.

Tonio Kruger

I’m not quite sure why there’s so little sympathy in this forum for those critics of Snyder’s Man of Steel who argued that Superman should not kill.

Especially among those people who are old enough to remember this link:

After the criticism that has been directed at American pop culture over the years, should we not be happy that so many people prefer that their version of the ideal American superhero not be a murderer?

Danielm80

She’s not reviewing the comics. She’s reviewing the movie. If people need to read 75 years’ worth of comics (or even a few series from the ’80s and ’90s) to understand the film, then Zack Snyder hasn’t told the story very clearly.

Some of the comics you mentioned, like The Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen, ask interesting questions about super-heroes: Can someone with that much power be trusted to use it responsibly? Is vigilante justice different from real justice? The comics made genuine efforts to address those questions. MaryAnn is saying that the movie brings up those sorts of questions without providing any interesting—or even coherent—answers. Maybe she would have enjoyed those comics more than she liked the movie.

Rorshach Sridhar

He spoke the truth.

zhoayu

It’s hardly a valid critique if you don’t take the source material into consideration. It’s 2 stories. If you don’t think you need to be at all familiar with the source stories than a valid critique for Titanic is that they were on a boat, or that in The Heart of the Sea they shouldn’t have used a giant whale.

Rorshach Sridhar

I’ll admit it, I laughed.

Rorshach Sridhar

Not really, they did help Supes successfully in Man of Steel.

Danielm80

There are two different arguments that could be made here:

(1.) Superman should never kill anyone.

(2.) If Superman is going to kill someone (which is out-of-character), the story needs to be really compelling and thought-provoking.

No matter which argument you make, Zack Snyder has found a way to disappoint you.

Danielm80

She’s not criticizing the movie for being about super-heroes, or even for being bleak. She’s criticizing it for being pointless and incoherent.

Lex Luthor was so terrible, his acting was like that one guy at (forgive the tautology) a really shitty improv show, you know, that guy who has only one funny voice that he can do, and he tries to come up with a comic character by haphazardly throwing quirks together.

Also, what was his motivation? What was he trying to accomplish and why?

I think my biggest problem with this movie was that it had all this stuff that it needed to get out of the way (setting up Justice League, etc.) and they were clearly so pressed for time that they had to rush the editing such that the whole movie was really confusing, and yet it kept wasting time with all these pointless nested dream sequences, the whole Senate thing that ended up going nowhere at all, the plot about the Russians and the White Portuguese, and basically every scene with Lois Lane in it.

Also, Granny’s Peach Tea. WTF.

zhoayu

She did criticize it for being bleak “cold, cruel, borderline incoherent in its testosterone-fueled rage and paranoia, misogynist, paternalistic… fascist”. I don’t know what you mean by saying the movie is pointless. Incoherent is also not true (maybe open to opinion) as it really made perfect sense in the order it was told. For example my first post the author does not know why Bruce and Lex don’t team up when the scene right before there he explains that he suspects Lex is up to no good and goes to the party to steal info from him. I’m not sure what you thought was incoherent about it as nothing happened without being explained.

I will say this about being incoherent though. There was no reason for Lois to go back into the water and retrieve the spear. So there is that.

LA Julian

A movie should stand alone as a self-contained entity that is enriched by, not explained by, extraneous data.

And certainly not contradicted radically by — don’t try to pull the gnostic on us, you’re not the One True Fanboy here!

(If your story requires people to wait for the extended version with all the explanatory outtakes that you left out so you could put more noisy, pointless action scenes in, you also fail as a director/editor/writer of filmed drama.)

LA Julian

I’ve noticed that both Logic and Grammar appear to be dump stats for Snyder-stans.

Captain Megaton

GotG was bland and formulaic, but still a tightly-executed, well-paced film. Marvel found the sweet spot of “good enough” movies a while ago and now sticks to it rigorously. It’s not very interesting, but there’s not enough outright badness there to move reviews into the “rotten” column.

zhoayu

“A movie should stand alone as a self-contained entity that is enriched by, not explained by, extraneous data.”- This is true but this movie makes complete sense without knowledge of any outside material (besides watching MoS which is obvious) so I’m not sure why you mention this here. I made 2 points about knowing the source material 1) Why is she critiquing this movie with no knowledge of the original stories (which she admits in the first paragraph) and 2) that the themes of this movie are rather dark/bleak which is true to the source material. Where I say once again the source is not a happy-go-lucky story why should the movie be. So I think my point stands, this is a negative review because the author thinks it was supposed to be a movie it’s not trying to be.

“(If your story requires people to wait for the extended version with all
the explanatory outtakes that you left out so you could put more noisy,
pointless action scenes in, you also fail as a director/editor/writer
of filmed drama.)” -The movie was definitely not perfect, and only 1 deleted scene has been released. And I’ll admit that scene had a place in this movie when at least one other scene did not. I have not seen all of the deleted scenes but I have seen this movie and at no point did I think story was taken out in exchange for action.

He kills in the desert, and it’s almost a joke, a “clever” way to save Lois.

you might have missed the scene with Bruce and Alfred

I did not miss that at all. In what way does that scene constitute “teaming up”? We later learn that Bruce *knows* it’s kryptonite, not a bomb that Luthor is smuggling into the city. Bruce is up to *precisely* the same “no good” that Luthor is… and Bruce knows it.

you mean the vision of the 1986 comics The Dark Knight Returns.

No, I mean the vision that is almost here in the film. If Zack Snyder intends his story to end in a 30-year-old comic book, he should have put a card up at the end of the film reading “If you are unhappy with how Batman is depicted here, please see the 1986 comic The Dark Knight Returns.”

Dont even know why this is a complaint. 1 building and the top of lexcorp were damaged.

Because this sort of thing is exactly what Bruce Wayne’s beef with Superman is all about! And if he learned *anything* at all as a result of this — that now he finds himself in a situation like the one Superman was in at the end of MoS — there is no indication of it.

Maybe you missed her fight scene?

Maybe you missed the sarcasm of my comment about her downloading files. That *is* more exciting than the fight scene, which is an incoherent mess.

I disagree with basically your whole 3rd paragraph. Those are all questions asked.

Yes, they *are* asked. As I indicated. And then they are all tossed away and never considered again.

these are all themes in the comics this movie is based off of.

But this movie isn’t *about* those themes, as Snyder’s Watchmen was. It just *is* them.

You don’t have to like the movie

Very generous of you.

Please, do some research about the characters.

Please, maybe read some of my other reviews of movies featuring these characters. I get them. And even if I didn’t, this movie has to stand on its own, and in complement to MoS. It doesn’t.

It’s hardly a valid critique if you don’t take the source material into consideration.

Of course it’s a valid critique. Also, this is not based on any comics in particular. It’s an original script.

a valid critique for Titanic is that they were on a boat

You do realize that the sinking of the Titanic is a real historical event, right? And yet, if someone riffed on it and made, say, a film about a spaceship disabled in space, it *would* be a valid critique to comment on how and how well such a change contributed to making the story interesting and new.

this movie makes complete sense without knowledge of any outside material

No, it doesn’t.

this is a negative review because the author thinks it was supposed to be a movie it’s not trying to be.

And what do sort of movie do you think I think this movie should be?

zhoayu

1)what didn’t make sense? I can’t answer this without details.

2) You don’t say what kind of movie you wanted it to be, but you say what kind of movie you didn’t want it to be which is “cold, cruel, borderline incoherent in its testosterone-fueled rage and paranoia, misogynist, paternalistic… fascist, even”

3) Overall yes its an original script. A script written with heavy influence from The Dark Knight Returns and The Death of Superman

4) I do realize it was a real event, just as well as you realize that this movie was based on already written comics. My reference was exaggerated for an example.

zhoayu

“why didn’t you do research than. Because movies have to stand on their own.” -This movie does not need any outside reference to understand.

“He doesn’t kill anyone besides in the nightmare sequence. He kills in the desert, and it’s almost a joke, a “clever” way to save Lois.” – He says in the very next scene after the desert sequence (the bath scene) that he did not kill anyone, the only ones killed were from lex corp employees to frame Superman.

3) Is a long quote so I wont copy pasta. But Bruce obviously does not completely know what Lex is up to. We see that he is passionate about the situation with Superman, giving reason for him to be overly cautious.

zhoayu

taking ideas from more than one one story doesn’t make it 100% original. And explain why this review is valid, you say you have no knowledge of the printed stories the movie is based off of, or even any of the printed stories involving these characters. How would someone like yourself know what this movie should be about?

Earth

Just a minor point. Alan Moore’s dystopian fiction has always had an element of hope informing the narrative. I know both wrote exceptional stories for DC but I really don’t think Frank Miller and Moore are comparable.

Anthony

So what if they’re white? I know contempt for the paler-skinned members of the Caucasoid category of humankind is fashionable in our fanatically-politically-correct culture, but the main characters _are_ white. Your interpretation smacks of the easily-triggered SJWs who think they know everything after three of four undergraduate courses at university. The world is not as great as you think it is. Crime is out of control, corruption is rampant, discrimination is everywhere. In fact, the preemptive anti-white rants people like you launch over every single thing is as discriminatory as anything in this world. Cities and their suburbs are divided amid the inevitable suspicion and hostility resulting from increased “diversity”. The more multicultural a society, the more divided it becomes. The high school I went to here in Australia was mainly Asian – Chinese, Koreans, Indians, Sri Lankans, Arabs and Vietnamese with some Slavs and a handful of Anglo-Celtic Australians. There was no assimilation anywhere. The different races stayed amid themselves. Like in prison. No happy-happy-hand-holding-smiley-faces. Division. Suspicion. Hostility. I disagree that this movie was a cynical, minority-hating longing for a less-diverse age. You are reading your interpretation into it – eisegesis, the enemy of good hermeneutics. Call me a xenophobe if you want, hurl all the buzzwords you want at me. I’m not those things – but you will certainly read what you want into my comment. Who will question you in this relativistic, pluralistic postmodern age? But I still think you’re wrong.

Earth

Sigh, it always depresses me to think that the Watchmen movie was directed by Zack Snyder. It’s akin to a fascist directing a film adaptation of 1984.

Anthony

Stop complaining of the “paternalistic” focus of a film called “BATMAN V SUPERMAN”. The title tells all. It is a movie about two MALE superheroes. There, I said it. i said the M word. Your problem with “damselling” is silly, as the only female character who does not “need saving” is Wonder Woman, who ticks all the boxes on the feminist list – except for being the lead in a movie that is not actually exclusively hers, but which you seem to demand anyway. But I’m wasting words. Anyone who calls a film like this “fascist” clearly needs their head examined. Your asinine perspective, drenched in bigoted political correctness is as laughable as the bigots you despise.

How am I “full of it” to point out that, for a guy who destroyed buildings, it’s funny and ironic that his epitaph is stolen from a guy who created them? You think I’m arguing about human casualties; I’m not. Read better.

Nathan

Well, the plot is loosely based on a Frank Miller series of comics so that explains the cynicism.

Jim Mann

First off, I didn’t find the movie as bad as MaryAnn did. I didn’t think it was GOOD, but it wasn’t completely awful. (And it probably could have been good if someone other than Zack Snyder were directing it.)

But there were lots of things, big and small, that didn’t make sense in the film. The characters behaved in nonsensical ways at times. (What was Luthor really trying to do? If he was creating Doomsday, why go through the elaborate nonsense of tricking Batman into fighting Superman?) And Luthor has digital copies of photos of Wonder Woman and other super humans, so Wonder Woman steels a drive to get her picture back. (Nobody in Metropolis makes more than one copy of a digital photo?) Many people think Superman caused a lot of people to die when rescuing Lois from terrorists, even thought that makes no sense and Lois herself can explain what Superman did.

It was a frustrating movie.

Pinkk

He’s the villain. If one was going to say that about Lois Lane, then why not say anything about Perry White? Martha Kent? Alfred didn’t get much development either.

– Spoilers – Yeah, it all falls apart the more you think about it. If Luthor had Kryptonite RIGHT THERE (he has a whole big rock of it at one point, and he uses Kryptonite fragments to slice off Zod’s fingertips), then instead of creating Doomsday why not just make… Kryptonite bullets?

And Wonder Woman’s quest to retrieve the photo from 1911 is nonsensical. If, as she says, she abandoned this world a hundred years ago, why should she care AT ALL that there’s an old photo of her floating around? How exactly does that hurt her, in any way? We’re just meant to assume “secret identities” are somehow important in this story, when they’re clearly not. Everyone knows who everyone else is!

And on and on and on. Just godawful storytelling all around.

TheSeeker

Feminism, how you find any reason too complain.

TheSeeker

If you’re 7 years old and like movies with toys.

TheSeeker

Jess is a terrible actor. Much like Seth Rogen, it’s the same character over and over.

TheSeeker

Feminists… find any reason to complain, even if it’s about a fictional character in a comic book film!
This whole pc movement is garbage. Maybe they should have turned wonder woman into a trannie and given her woman of the year award.

TheSeeker

Watchmen was a great movie.

TheSeeker

This is easily one of the most biased reviews I have read regarding this film. Congratulations.

LA Julian

Because Lois has ALWAYS been one of the main characters in Superman, to the point of having her own adventures where she rescues HIM. It’s not a “lone hero” story and never has been — don’t be fooled by the title! It’s been an ensemble cast from the start, and remaking it as a John Galt All Alone (only giving Lois less to do than Dagny Taggart!) is a travesty. And yes, people ARE complaining about the way that everyone else gets shortshrifted too. That’s part of why it’s so boring and meanspirited — eg the treatment of Jimmy Olsen!

LA Julian

Evidently, you have no reading comprehension.

LA Julian

Have you seen Moore’s recent work? The Cthulhu mythos based stuff? Damn-all hope there. And not much hope at all in any of his other stuff, at least from an outsider’s perspective — he’s as much WHORES WHORES WHORES as Frank, only smarmier. Not to mention the way he is responsible for Killing Joke’s sexualized depowering of Barbara AND refuses to take personal responsibility for it, or ANY of his mistakes — it’s always the fault of his editors for not stopping him…

Nathan

In other words, if you must break the yoke of the character at least make an omelet of it. Don’t just half-bake it and let it cool into a rubbery disappointment of cliches and melodrama.

expelliamus

Misogynistic? fuck offf

LA Julian

And it came after a number of people had been saying, only half-jokingly, that MoS only made sense if it was “Objectivist Superman” especially after the BvS:DoJ trailer with Ma Kent reinforcing Pa Kent’s nihilistic selfishness telling him “You don’t owe the world anything!” which caused such dismay…

He doesn’t seem to have the common sense of a gnat when it comes to PR, but that seems to be par for entitled dudebro directors beloved of laddish fanboys (see also Max Landis, Josh Trank, Alex Proyas) and how he gloated about killing off Jimmy Olsen as a redshirt because he didn’t know what to do with him, then about killing off Clark himself for much the same reason and “faking out” the viewers because nobody would believe he’d kill him in the first JLA movie — even though the only reason nobody thought he’d do it, was because it wouldn’t make any sense to do the late-series Death of Superman story at the beginning of an already-rushed arc…

Nathan

*To

Bluejay

No, only good reasons.

Bluejay

A stunning counterargument.

LA Julian

The “source material” is 70+ years worth of stories, not The Angsty Nineties only.

That’s why Zootopia is a better Justice League movie, let alone a better superhero movie, than anything Snyder will ever be able to slap together.

LA Julian

Villains should be fun and interesting and entertaining! That’s why we like seeing our heroes go up against them — especially if they have some good points and are not cardboard villains. But Snyder’s an Objectivist, and villains in Ayn Rand novels are just weak, yet overpowered, snivelling parasites. Objectivist Luthor stinks like a rotten egg, because Snyder can’t show John Galt as the villain of the stories the way he is (although even Lex often is written with more altruism than John Galt and Howard Roark!)

LA Julian

What did I say? Snyder-stans’ dump stats are Logic & Grammar!

LA Julian

Except people have posted panels showing that Miller’s Dark Knight is a Paragon in a sunny park, compared to this! It’s really bad, when Frank Miller’s version comes off as Pratchettian humanism, by comparison!

Owen1120

Have you seen or heard of the first one?

LA Julian

No, they never come out of their basements except to watch gritty grimdark R-rated movies.

LA Julian

I guess you have never read any of the old Superman comics, or know that Lois frequently headlined in the Golden and Silver age stories, or watched any of the TV shows then!

LA Julian

Go back under your bridge, troll, and stop trying to halt the trains of progress by shouting “stop!” — it won’t end well for you.

Bluejay

Not to mention the way he is responsible for Killing Joke’s sexualized depowering of Barbara

The good news is that Babs Tarr and the current Batgirl team have turned it into a falsely implanted memory (while, unfortunately, maintaining deniability to placate the misogynist subset of fandom).

LA Julian

The way you defenders are always appealing to the Miller comics to make sense of it, shows that not even you think it makes sense by itself! You can’t have it both ways!

LA Julian

Yes, I’m glad they’re finally addressing it as something really messed up and Batgirl is a good inspiring series — but on the other hand, undoing Oracle as the fixfic solution is also a disappointment. There isn’t really any perfect way to patch that fault line…

Hugo ‘DenPapa’ Strange

I understand why you’re lonely in real life.

Bluejay

I wonder if they could write in a different reason that Barbara got paralyzed, which Fugue replaced with the Joker memory for nefarious reasons. That way you can still have Barbara heroically overcoming the trauma without having to deal with Moore’s misogyny.

Hugo ‘DenPapa’ Strange

“He kills in the desert, and it’s almost a joke, a “clever” way to save Lois.”

No he doesn’t. It was confirmed by Clark himself during the bathtub scene, that he didn’t kill anyone.

Why am I not surprised you gave the film a 1*, when you’re too simple to follow even the simplest of plot points.

LA Julian

That’s a brilliant idea! Not as though they haven’t done bigger & bolder retcons! (I’m expecting Snyder to do the Lian Harper thing in JL myself…)

BraveGamgee

Gah, I thought the exact same thing! It just made me want to watch Lord of the Rings when I got home

Adrijana Radosevic

I’m sorry but this movie definitely relies HEAVILY on the “everyone’s read the comics” instead of actual storytelling.
As a person who isnt into dc universe, after seeing the movie I had to go online to find out:

#lex is actually the son of lex luthor,not lex luthor himself.which really makes no sense either, if superman just started out how can his arch nemesis already have an heir? Obviously here luthor we remember from the old movies never exists.

#what the hell was the cave troll in the end. I still only know it’s supposedly called Doomsday, I still dont understand is it just a Superzod, or a different creature, nor why DID it choose to attack the heroes… Actually I’ve no idea why luthor created it (except hey, the guy’s crazy, he doesn’t need a reason) nor what it’s motivations were to act the way it acted.

# that the metahumans aren’t other superman’s brothers and sisters being sent to earth from krypton. I dunno, while I was watching that only made sense. I also dont get why didnt luthor try to contact and hire them.

# that batman’s suit gives him extra strength. In the movie this is never addressed so his physical feats look laughably surreal.

Etc, I mean there’s more but I dont feel like listing anymore. I think this movie shoukdve been fair to warn us regular movie goers to not bother if we havent been reading dc comics.

And I see that as a huge fault. I havent been reading Marvel but I follow their movies just fine. I saw harry potter movies before I read the books and I didnt feel lost watching the movies. I am a big lotr fan but I nevrr heard anyone complain that they didnthear a key character’s name or understad their motivations in lotr movies. So thats my biggest complaint, as far as visualizing comics in a motion picture media this thing goes a long way, but as a story, it’s…non existant.

Danielm80

A number of recent super-hero stories have been suggesting that the heroes are important, in part, because they inspire us to help each other. A major trope of Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man movies was the scene in which civilians rescue Peter Parker, and the idea also showed up in last week’s Batman #50 and last night’s episode of Supergirl.

I like the trope, because it makes sense within the story but also comments on readers’ relationship with the comics. I wish Zack Snyder had tried it out in this movie.

Bluejay

Snyder makes a lame halfhearted gesture towards that in the end: Bruce Wayne mumbles something about “people are still good” and then you have Superman’s funeral with Christopher Wren’s epitaph — the point apparently being that his memorial isn’t in stone, it’s in the people he’s inspired. Except the film never shows us any civilians inspired to do anything, so the sentiment is unearned.

I think “unearned” is actually the key adjective for this movie. It wants us to think profound thoughts about our relationship with superheroes, but it doesn’t earn it. It wants us to be invested in the big BvS fight, but it doesn’t earn it. It wants us to feel sad about Superman dying, but it doesn’t earn it. It takes all these shortcuts, makes assumptions about what the audience knows, and doesn’t do the work. The movie itself is a big shortcut to an Avengers-style franchise, without having done all of the groundwork of establishing well-fleshed-out heroes in previous films.

Jurgan

I kind of feel sorry for you.

Jurgan

Aggh, I’m hit! How can I possibly withstand such brilliant logic and stirring rhetoric?

Jurgan

You know Maryann loved the Nolan Batman films, right? Those had very few female characters of note (a bit more in the third one), but she praised them. So the idea that she will automatically complain about any comicbook movie on feminist grounds is false.

Jurgan

Even though the bias meter explicitly states she like Man of Steel? “Bias” seems to have become just another word for “disagrees with me.” Like “I can’t imagine someone honestly reaching a different conclusion than me, so they must be biased.”

TheSeeker

All the superman movies are “sucky”. Superman sucks.

Jurgan

I haven’t seen MoS, but from what I heard, there’s a problem even without considering Superman’s mythic status. Within the context of the movie, why does Superman consider killing a big deal? Why is this his “one rule” that he won’t break? His adoptive father certainly didn’t teach him a respect for life, as he said it might be okay to let a bus full of children die to protect his secret identity. So if we haven’t established that he has a vow against killing, then there’s no drama when he’s forced to confront the consequences of that vow. The best use of this trope ever was the anime Trigun, where Vash very clearly was taught that killing was always wrong and was ultimately forced to kill someone anyway. That had weight. MoS, from what I’ve heard, simply assumes we know Superman is opposed to killing but doesn’t justify it.

Again, I haven’t seen MoS, so it could be that it works better than I’m imagining, but I doubt it.

Jurgan

Weak men are basically women, which of course is the worst thing to be.

TheSeeker

If you are talking to me, no , I wouldn’t waste any time reading superman comics when there are dozens of better characters out there. Superman is honestly one of the most boring, lame characters ever.

TheSeeker

I’m an adult with a job and life. I don’t watch lego movies aimed at children. Lol. What’s your excuse?

Granted, it’s just a fan-made supercut, but THIS is how you build up to a satisfying conflict between superheroes — you get the audience invested film by film, TV show by TV show, character by character. And then you pull it all together and make it a fight for genuine, deeply held convictions, rather than a fight between an easily-manipulated guy with misplaced rage and another easily-manipulated guy who’s being forced to fight because they kidnapped his mommy.

Jurgan

She watched the movie and she didn’t enjoy it. It’s her personal opinion that it’s a bad movie, just as it’s your opinion that it’s a good movie. She’s not pretending to speak for everyone, just saying that as someone who doesn’t know much about the comics it didn’t work for her. Meaning, if you do know a lot about the comics, you might have a very different opinion.

Jurgan

They’re fun?

TheSeeker

Batman is cool, though.

TheSeeker

I suppose.

TheSeeker

Are we reading the same review? I’ve never read any of this womans reviews before so I can’t comment about her views. Only what I have read on this bvs review. The whole damsel is distress is nothing new, the only people who complain about something like that are feminists.

Jurgan

Congratulations, you figured out Maryann’s secret: She’s a feminist! Way to go, Columbo.

Earth

It’s pornography.

Earth

Um…it’s the Cthulhu mythos…Lovecraft is all about hopelessness and despair.

Sigh. You know, not everyone on the internet is on the attack. I actually agreed with just about everything in your previous post. But I can see you’ve already made up your mind about Moore’s work so there’s no point discussing this further.

Tonio Kruger

Given the way you keep bringing up Ayn Rand themes, you might want to check out the Brad Bird movie Tomorrowland if you haven’t already seen it. If nothing else, it contains the best cinematic argument against the whole Atlas Shrugged theme that I have ever seen in a movie. IMHO, of course.

And if nothing else, it’s more entertaining than anything I’ve seen thus far from Zack Snyder.

Bluejay

Jurgan: In the context of Man of Steel, Superman forms his moral code against killing after he kills Zod and experiences its moral cost. More here.

OdeToViceroy

This isn’t in regard to his comment, but I found your comments on Wonder Woman completely unfair. *Spoilers* Her part is one of the best parts of the movie, which got me, and the crowd I was with, pretty pumped up. When she jumps in, cue the music, she completely upstages Superman in that fight. She’s having fun, tangling with DD better than Superman. She actually does a way better job against DD than Superman does, because Superman is visibly shaken every time DD hits him, while WW is just havin a ball.

Dr. Rocketscience

Ugh, I really don’t want to be that guy, don’t make me be that guy, Bluejay…. *sigh* Fridge logic time:

Luthor only has the big rock for (presumably) a few hours before Bruce steals it. Bruce appears to use nearly all of that rock in making three kryptonite gas grenades, which seem only capable of slowing Clark down. If Luthor’s tiny sample were enough, why would he need the big rock?

I’m cheating here a little, but even from just the movie, one can interpret that Diana would like to stay (relatively) anonymous and retired. Bruce and Clark absolutely keep their identities secret. Lex figures out Clark’s (through METHODS, but it really shouldn’t take much), but I don’t think he knows Bruce’s.

Dr. Rocketscience

I try not to judge other people’s kinks, but…

Earth

Pornographic as in self-indulgent. The way it’s filmed, it cares far more about style than any kind of substance.

gRammarnazi

Why is it a problem that it doesn’t make sense for non comic book readers? So DC should cater for casual fans rather than the people who actually know anything about the characters?

Dr. Rocketscience

Counterpoint:
A. The DCCU is 2 movies in. 2 movies into the MCU, there was one movie that was better than it had any right to be (a feat its creator has never replicated) and one no one even remembers was an MCU movie. So I find straight comparisons between the two, at this stage, to be hugely premature.

B. The Civil War story arc puts Tony Stark on the side of law and order, and Steve Rodgers on the side of (albeit principled) vigilantism. In D&D terms, it has Iron Man as Lawful Good, and Captain America as Chaotic Good. In other words, it’s bass ackwards. Nothing in the promo material for the movie indicates that this fundamental flaw has been corrected. CA:CW may well turn out to be a good movie, but I think it will be in spite of, not because of, all the buildup of the characters.

C. I’m a fan of the Marvel tv shows, and of the DC TV shows, which are just as good. DC shows may definitively happen in a separate universe from the movies, Marvel shows effectively do as well.

Dr. Rocketscience

Wow, over 100 comments already. Didn’t think this one would be controversial.

Y’know, I appreciate that the film has it’s admirers, I do hope a better caliber of such shows up. >.<

Danielm80

It would make life much simpler for the distributor if the movie were aimed only at die-hard fans. They could schedule all the screenings at large comic conventions and not have to deal with theatre chains.

Bluejay

It’s a mainstream, multimillion-dollar movie that’s being marketed all over the world. Does everyone have to do their homework and read all the comic source material? Did you have to read all the Iron Man comics in order to appreciate the Iron Man movies? These films should have stories and characters that are understandable by themselves.

Owen1120

It was written/directed by Lord and Miller and then got a 96 on Rotten Tomatoes. That’s why I watched it.

jgray84

Couldn’t disagree more- when did Superman kill anyone in this movie, for a start? Lois was certain and emotionally stable whereas Clarke and Bruce were buffeted by doubt and moral instability. It is Lois Lane and Martha Kent who tether Clarke to his humanity, far from being irrelevant. It’s Lois who saves Superman, who realises that since Doomsday is Kryptonian, the spear will kill him and risks her life to retrieve it. As far as being rescued goes, virtually every. single. human. being. in the movie is fodder to be rescued by Superman at some point. She needed rescued because she can’t fly when dropped from a great height or shift a massive block of concrete, not because she was a woman.

Bruce’s change of heart came about because suddenly Superman was more than just a threat to him; he was a man with a mother- the name just lent more weight to it all. Surely what we all need is for those we are prejudiced against to be humanised in our eyes? Far from applauding Batman’s ‘1% chance’ stance, the movie shows us implicitly that he was wrong, that the angry, testosterone fuelled paranoia that drove him was a flaw, not a virtue.

jgray84

Oh, for goodness sake. It’s a superhero movie. Buildings suffer in Superhero movies, and comics, and Saturday morning cartoons. It’s more exciting and ably shows the power of the characters who’re slugging it out.

And if this was a Superman 2 movie. I’d see it. This was a Batman versus Superman: Let us get started with Justice League movie (which btw I’m not saying they should have done it the way they did it).
I’m curious where this time in the movie is, to give these smaller parts bigger parts is. I can see where they could have taken out parts of the movie and given those characters bigger parts (like all those dream sequences…and did we really need to see Bruce Wayne’s parents killed again…who btw, we didn’t get a lot of character development from them either) but if they thought the dream sequences where that important (I don’t think they were myself…and many I talk to said they found them confusing) what exactly was to be cut (other than the retrend on Batman’s origin :p)
Of course, they all could have had great character development and that was the 30mins they cut from the film :p

Mike Grogan

though it’s plain that Luthor doesn’t realize that Wayne is Batman

What’s plain is that you didn’t understand the movie.

Luthor knew who Bruce was. He knew Superman was Clark. The whole lead up to the fight was orchestrated by Luthor.

Do you think it was just luck that nothing ever came of Bruce planting the tap in the server room, after Mercy saw him in there?

Do you think Luthor was wheeling and dealing with the government to actually bring kryptonite into the country for his own use?

He was laying down a trail of bread crumbs, ala Algernon, Q, for Silva in Skyfall. Bruce had to believe he was discovering the existence and location of krptonite on his own. When Luthor shows up to Lexcorp to find the empty container – he isn’t surprised… because it is part of the plan.

Lois Lane is a damsel in distress? Of course she is. She’s a pawn. The desert compound scene established that Superman would be there to save her. The fact that they live together and love each other shows why. She was the pawn to lure Superman to Lexcorp, so Luthor could reveal the other pawn and trump card he held against Superman – his mother.

Using the loved ones of an invincible alien, who happen to be female, isn’t misogyny – it’s part of the plan.

Hey, at least Lois didn’t wind up dead in a refrigerator.

And dead pawns bring us full circle back to how Luthor knew Bruce was Batman. You really think Luthor’s use of Wallace was a coincidence? What did you think the messages on those returned checks were about? Luthor flat out told Superman he sent those notes to help push Bruce over the edge.

He KILLED Wallace. Is that misandry? No, it’s part of the plan. Maybe it was misogyny that Luthor didn’t kill Lois or Martha, because women are too fragile to be killed in a plan to bring Superman and Batman to war. It’s better to rescue them.

Or maybe people could just take off their politically colored glasses when watching a movie(even one that is quite convoluted in its plot). That way they might catch details they missed because they were busy taking notes on things to whine about.

Nathan

Made all the more effective by the addition of those two extra “f”s

Nathan

Well at least I can follow Miller’s plots without having to squint.

LA Julian

Oh, you pitiful fool. Projection’s a hell of a drug!

Rorshach Sridhar

By admitting defeat my good man.

LA Julian

There’s pretty much always a full Bigotry Bingo when dealing with Snyder-stans. It seems to be the only action movie to bring the Gamergaters out of their holes in any signiifcant number.

Rorshach Sridhar

It it’s heroes fighting Doomsday and there’s no destruction, then it’s not a comic book fight.

Rorshach Sridhar

Complaining about every single piece of destruction. Smh

Rorshach Sridhar

lol

Jurgan

You’re adorable.

Jurgan

A popular comic’s sales are measured in the thousands. A major movie release where only a few thousand people see it is a terrible flop. If you want to make a movie with a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars and you want it to be profitable, you can’t hear it solely towards regular comic’s readers. Now, the direct to DVD animation market is a different story. DC has done pretty well marketing those movies to fans, but they don’t have a budget anywhere near BvS: DoJ.

Jurgan

Also, there are many different versions of the characters. Many people know some about them from previous movies and shows.

Jurgan

How is it backwards? Did you see Winter Soldier? Cap was definitely not “lawful good” in that one.

Dr. Rocketscience

Then he reverts back in time for Age of Ultron. Don’t get me wrong, I loves me some Winter Soldier. But the characterization of Cap is highly inconsistent. And then to try and set him and Stark against each other? On that axis? Nick Fury please.

Dale Yancey

Reviewer is a liberal idiot. Did you even see the same movie that I did??? If you are looking for a strong independent female character who isn’t a damsel in distress, how about Wonder Woman??? She had no one opening doors for her or saving her. But whatever, women lib idiots are men haters and would prefer to soak in an estrogen filed bath while watching The View. Oh well, the libs ruined our country in the 60s and they are still working to ruin it even more today. All hail the lesbo Hillary and the further destruction of the American male.

IntrepidNormal

But there’s also the problem of retconning a beloved disabled character’s disability.

Lois was certain and emotionally stable whereas Clarke and Bruce were buffeted by doubt and moral instability. It is Lois Lane and Martha Kent who tether Clarke to his humanity, far from being irrelevant.

Yeah, and that’s the problem. Women are their own people, not supporting characters for men! It is not women’s jobs to be perfect so that they can help men better themselves.

Don’t forget his hatred of the view, and love of American males. He just loves him some male.

Nathan

What I want to know is where Robo-Action-Jesus-Stein is during all of this. and Thor.

Nathan

Not because of multi-dimensional blue dongs of unlimited expansion?

Nathan

Well the Super Friends are all pretty “white-bread” but I get what you’re saying.

Earth

I thought the blue dong was notorious for being small?

Nathan

Yeah, must be hard to say anything when you have to be screaming all the time. He could have just said, I relate to white people because I’m white and dislike being shamed for it. Much more concise. Still wrong though.

Nathan

Naw Allen’s more like FEMALE PLOT DEVICES FEMALE PLOT DEVICES.

Nathan

I just shrug… and begin to take them less seriously.

bronxbee

why would an “unpopulated island” have so many lovely buildings?

bronxbee

i don’t either. but we don’t need superman and batman to destroy great architecture; just greedy developers (not all of them, but i work in manhattan where a lot of interesting buildings are coming down).

bronxbee

and i hate to see Amy Adams brilliance wasted in a film. she is so amazing. i hope her current movies (in post production) will be as good for her as American Hustle and Big Eyes.

bronxbee

i did like some of MoS but eventually, the violence and destruction and killing of Zod (oh, stop! everyone knows this by now) really disturbed me. i’m a new yorker. violent destruction, even in defense of the city (i.e., the Avengers) causes me anxiety and upset by the seeming casual reaction to it. (although, it was dealt with in Iron Man 3 by Tony at least). also, the “fight” or “battle” scenes go on *far* too long, losing any urgency the movie might have built up. i know i won’t be going to see BvS, but it’s my general weariness with this type of movie.

bronxbee

my goodness! how can you criticize one review when you haven’t read her entire body of work? you obviously are coming in from a state of ignorance. you need to go back and read thousands of reviews from 19 years of work, otherwise you can’t discuss anything.

Bluejay

Yeah, come to think of it, Superman’s more enjoyable films were the ones in which he DID battle a greedy real-estate developer. :-)

In the comics, Luthor also became President. That might be interesting to adapt to film; having the villain be a real-estate developer/businessman who wears a bad toupee and gets elected President seems pretty plausible and relevant these days.

Just a guy

Let’s play a game called spot the feminazi

Just a guy

He’s not Lex Luthor.
He’s one of the most important villain in the DC Universe. So yes he’s a more developed character.

Lois Lane is just superman’s girlfriend. She has no origin story. No future story. What she did in the movie is actually a LOT more than she should’ve done.

Bluejay

Hmm, I don’t see one. It’s as nonexistent as your critical thinking and rhetoric.

Bluejay

You don’t know your Lois Lane history very well.

Besides, writers can make characters do whatever they want them to do. The decision not to develop Lois’s character is a CHOICE, one among many. And we can hold the filmmakers responsible for that.

Dr. Rocketscience

Only Deadpool can answer that question…

Anthony

Well, Superman doesn’t tick all the boxes of the masculinist list, but I won’t lose sleep over it. Why can’t stories be stories without every branch of humanity scrutinizing them to ensure their group(s) is/are 1. Represented 2. Represented exactly as they require or they will declare total war upon it?

Anthony

That makes one.

Bluejay

1. Represented

So if men were the lead protagonists in only 12% of films, you would be totally okay with it. Right?

2. Represented exactly as they require

What, exactly, do you think is “required”?

If women were represented as abundantly and with as much variety as men, there wouldn’t be as many complaints about what the woman “represents,” because there would be many kinds of women in any given film.

The big fight takes place primarily on a small undeveloped island in the harbor between Metropolis and Gotham… sort of like a Governors Island (though I know that one does have buildings). But some of it does still back into Metropolis.

Why can’t women be represented onscreen in the same depth and variety that men are? Why can’t nonwhite people be represented onscreen in the same depth and variety that white people are?

You think a film review constitutes “total war”? Ha.

Danielm80

I’ve been amazed to see how many people are saying, “But all the characters are cardboard!” and don’t see that as a flaw in the film.

Pinkk

Still doesn’t make her anything but a supporting character in this film. In a MoS2, can totally see her in a more prominent role, but this is not that movie.
But the question now is, is it a matter of the supporting characters not getting enough development or just Lois because she’s a woman?

Mike Grogan

They did team up. You seem to keep forgetting that Luthor got the Krptonite for Bruce, so he could stand a chance against Superman.

That’s the beauty of it – they were working together, Bruce just didn’t know it.

bronxbee

51% of the actors “represented” in a movie would be women.

Bluejay

Either that or DC Comics has just been extremely prescient.

Danielm80

Lex Luthor is a genius. That’s one of his defining characteristics—even in the Gene Hackman incarnation.

If it’s not a Lois Lane movie then why is she in SO MANY scenes? I know I thought that the scene where Clark brings her flowers in the bathtub was the most endearing part of the film, and I think I would have been satisfied if her scenes amounted to that and a few comic relief scenes at the Daily Planet, but no, she’s all over this movie. If they’re going to insist upon putting her in scene after scene then they should at least use all that time to do something.

Not at all, but I know the insinuation will make someone as small minded as him uncomfortable.

Speaking of homosexuality, isn’t it funny that DC has embraced lesbian characters but is much more hesitant to showcase gay role models? I know there’s a gay green lantern out there but I can’t think of an other example that isn’t cliche and terrible.

Nathan

Oh dear, I was hoping to avoid that fellow.

Nathan

I just dislike films that are trying too hard to be cool. I mean, every time Snyder pulled a slow zoom on that damn painting with the obnoxious Nolan-esk over-loud orchestral track I wanted to scream. Something about the colour wash-out and the slow motion made the whole film look vaguely like a men’s perfume commercial.

Well then, I’m a feminist too, as I can’t stand the overused damsel in distress trope. Drives me nuts.
You say feminist as if it’s a bad word. I’m proud to be one.

Anthony

‘Ha’ to you too. Women are represented onscreen with depth and variety. Don’t go demanding absolute perfection in various representative demands within mindless, adolescent, popcorn flicks like superhero movies. Nonwhite people ARE represented onscreen with the same “depth and variety” (sigh) as white persons. America is not the only nation that makes movies, you know. The film industry for many, many ‘nonwhite’ countries is over a century old, and they’ve been representing their respective demographics and all their “depth and variety” (sigh) for the entire length of that time. As for the USA , it is 72% white, 12% black – don’t be catastrophically shocked if this difference somehow seeps into film.

Anthony

Don’t attack my views simply because they don’t align with yours. I’m not the one running the hundreds of film studios worldwide. I’m not the one who made the world the way it is. Blame the marketers and producers, the writers and directors who are the ones behind it all. They are simply doing what they can to make money – that’s all. It’s a business. And it’s working for them.
To cite percentages (without a source, mind you) that highlight the disproportions in representation of male and female protagonists is silly. It is silly because what can you expect, seeing that cinema and motion pictures were invented by men? The directors were mostly all men, and still are. The scripts were mostly written by men. The adapted screenplays were based on books and plays mostly be men.
However, if you look at film history post 1970 you see films becoming more and more feminine and feminist.

Bluejay

Don’t attack my views simply because they don’t align with yours.

Ooh, any kind of pushback is an “attack,” eh? What about you ATTACKING the reviewer’s opinion just because it’s not the same as yours? YOU’RE the one who called her perspective “asinine” and “bigoted political correctness.” THAT’S not an attack? At least I haven’t called YOU asinine, not yet anyway. This, my friend, is what you call a “discussion.” An “argument,” even. Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.

Blame the marketers and producers, the writers and directors

And who says we don’t? Who says I’m holding YOU personally responsible for the state of affairs? Get over your ego. However, you ARE arguing that representation in films is just fine. I disagree, and so I am expressing it. Don’t like it that I’m challenging your opinion? Tough. Cry me a fucking river.

They are simply doing what they can to make money – that’s all. It’s a business.

Then they’re making stupid decisions if they’re constantly failing to represent women fairly, because they’re ignoring a paying audience that shows up in HUGE numbers when women have leading roles onscreen (Hunger Games, Frozen, Gravity, Spy, etc, just recently). Putting more women onscreen draws in audiences, and makes just as much business sense, if not more, than focusing on the teenage boy crowd.

To cite percentages (without a source, mind you) that highlight the disproportions in representation of male and female protagonists is silly.

You’re right, I should have included a source. Here it is. And in another comment, you argued that because the US is 72% white and 12% black, that proportion should be reflected in film representation. So BY YOUR OWN LOGIC, since the US is 51% female and 49% male, that should ALSO be reflected in film.

You’re right that men and their stories have been dominant in the film industry (although women were VERY present both in front of and behind the camera in film’s early years). However, YOU seem to be okay with the status quo, with your “what can you expect” argument. The point is, yes, this IS what we can expect when the industry is very male-heavy, AND it’s a problem that needs to be called out. We are missing out on a lot of non-white, non-male perspectives.

Mike Grogan

And you are more in love with wanting to be right than the truth.

Bluejay

The truth is, she’s right.

Mike Grogan

How’s that?

Luthor tells Superman that he sent the notes to push Bruce over the edge.

Push him over the edge of what? Barring that he knows that Bruce is Batman.

Answer that, and your statement will be true. Fail to, and you’re just as wrong.

Bluejay

You’re arguing that Luthor and Batman teamed up because Luthor helped Batman along without Batman’s knowledge. But “teaming up” requires mutual recognition and cooperation. Manipulating someone to do what you want isn’t “teaming up” with that person, it’s deception. Therefore MaryAnn is right that you have a strange definition of “teaming up.”

What MaryAnn is arguing is that it seems unnecessary for Luthor to deceive Bruce anyway, since they both independently seem to want the same thing: destroy Superman. So why not team up for real, with open communication and cooperation between the two of them? Why doesn’t Luthor just GIVE Bruce the Kryptonite, instead of making Bruce think he has to steal it?

Mike Grogan

First of all, I didn’t mean team up in the literal sense. I figure that should have been obvious when I said – Bruce didn’t know it. Subtlety seems to go by a lot of people around here.

Luthor used Bruce. Is that literal enough for you?

Why? Because he needed Bruce to think the idea was his own. Because he could. It’s irrelevant.

But you are not speaking to the point. MaryAnn’s argument is prefaced on the fact that Luthor did not know Bruce was Batman.

How is that possible? For it to be true, it would make absolutely no sense for Luthor to do what he did.

– Befriending Wallace
– Intercepting the checks from Wayne Enterprises
– Not backing off from antagonizing Superman after the Krponoite was stolen
– The list could go on, but let’s just put the cherry on top with the point that cannot be spoken to- what is Luthor talking about when he explicitly tells Superman that he sent the messages to Bruce in order to push him over the edge, if the edge is not to take Superman on as Batman? What was it?

The original point is unassailable. Luthor’s own words make no sense if he didn’t know Bruce was Batman the whole time.

Bluejay

And as MaryAnn argued: If indeed you’re right that Lex knows who Bruce is, then it makes even less sense that he’s not openly collaborating with him. Why does he need Bruce to think the idea was his own? Why is it irrelevant, as opposed to just bad writing?

Can you explain how Lex’s notes and intercepted checks are supposed to “push Bruce over the edge,” exactly? Is Bruce meant to believe that SUPERMAN stopped those checks and sent them back with those notes? Because (a) that was never clear, (b) sending a superhero into a rage with notes on bounced checks is yet another example of godawful screenwriting, and (c) that makes this the most gullible Batman I’ve ever seen onscreen.

Actually, if you can explain exactly what the hell Luthor’s plan was in general, I’d be grateful. Because as far as I can tell, Lex’s plans were total shit.

take off their politically colored glasses… busy taking notes on things to whine about… subtlety seems to go by a lot of people around here

Your condescension is noted, and doesn’t impress anyone. Stick to arguing the points.

Mike Grogan

That’s called moving the goal posts.

It’s irrelevant. I don’t have to guess Luthor’s motives. It would be speculation.

You cannot explain why Luthor said he sent the messages and believe he didn’t know who Batman was. Game. Set. Match.

Just admit it, and move on. You’re another person who seems to value being right more than the truth.

Bluejay

You cannot explain why Luthor said he sent the messages and believe he didn’t know who Batman was.

And I never claimed that that’s what I believed. Read my comments again. Game-set-match my ass.

I don’t have to guess Luthor’s motives. It would be speculation.

A well-written story makes it clear, at some point, what its characters’ motivations are, if they are to be more than cardboard figures being moved around for the convenience of the plot. So you’re saying you basically are giving this movie a pass for bad writing.

That’s called moving the goal posts.

No, that’s called expanding the topic and trying to have a conversation. CAN you explain Luthor’s plans? Because I’d really be glad if someone did. But hey, if you want to take your ball and stomp off home, I can’t stop you.

Anthony

My ‘attack’ was justified because this review _is_ saturated in the tired, unfair and idiotic PC, SJW garbage they inject in student’s minds these days. The reviewer is not an idiot, just another minion of the system’s flawed, revisionist philosophy. It was not a personal opinion that I opposed, but that if the education system entire. There are times for cool and collected discussion and times when something seems so outrageous (PC culture) it has to be, or at least deserves a challenge.
As for my ‘logic’ – women are represented in at least half of all films. What on earth are you on about? Pretty much every movie ever made has the female sex in a prominent role. Some movies like Cukor’s ‘The Women’ (1939) have only women and no men in them at all. If they are not represented they way our society requires, that’s due to the thousands of years of paternalism being ingrained in the collective cultural consciousness. And this has been changing since the 1960s. It would have changed much earlier had WW2 never happened, as nothing makes people more right wing and conservative than war. In short, we are not missing out on nonwhite perspectives, because foreign movies are more available than ever. Minorities in the USA will get more exposure in the future because they will be, if lumped together against the declining white populace, the majority of the population one day. And all the things we’re bickering about will seem as senseless as a moron like me having a duckling for his profile pic.

Danielm80

They’ve already admitted it and moved on. Bluejay and MaryAnn both conceded that, in all likelihood, Lex knew Bruce’s identity. But the issue only came up because MaryAnn was making a larger point: Lex’s plan makes no sense at all, because the movie makes no sense at all. And whether Lex knew who Bruce was, and whether or not the two of them “teamed up,” even in a figurative way, the script is still nonsense.

If you want to focus on technical details and ignore the larger argument, feel free. You can claim, for example, that Luthor’s motives don’t matter, even though they’re the driving force of the movie. But that makes you look like someone who values being right more than the truth.

Pinkk

You’re right. That happens a lot. What I disagree on, is the idea that because the gender of supporting character is opposite the main, and that supporting character didn’t get a lot of development, it should be a knock on the movie? o.O
The question I think should be, were the supporting characters in this movie in need of more development for this movie? As the movie was supposed to be about BvS (it was so lacking there) and their setup for Justice League (the DoJ), I would consider the supporting characters to be nothing more than that…supporting. So, if that was their place in the movie, why have it be a knock against the movie that a supporting character was just that? Because…one of them was a woman?
Movie had lots of flaws, I just don’t see that being a flaw in it. Especially since what you want to see (because you just don’t see it enough) would have dragged out a movie that dragged out a lot already and because as said, supporting characters are there to support, if they get more development, awesome, if it doesn’t drag down the movie.

Pinkk

Because she’s a supporting character and it’d mean less if it was a stranger. I would argue they should have put more Superman (or even Clark Kent) in the Batman v /Superman/ movie. :p

LA Julian

There is a despairing worldview, and there is sexually torturing characters and doing so in male-gazey nihilistic ways, and then saying “Yeah that was fucked up and they shouldn’t have let me do it” while still pretending to be a feminist — Terry Pratchett also wrote Cthulhu Mythos fanfic, you do know that, right? And it was the most optimistic, humanist, egalitarian fantasy explicitly taking down the nihilism of Moore (Guards! Guards! is his remake of Watchmen, Night Watch is his retort to The Killing Joke.) So no, you don’t know what you’re talking about, because you’re stanning too hard.

LA Julian

Who all happen to be prostitutes. The Wachowskis improved significantly on V by making the heroine a media professional.

LA Julian

Did you see that Snyder is trying to make a Fountainhead movie? I really wish he’d just done that, and not pissed all over the comic books.

You’re right. I’m “stanning” because I dare to state an opinion different to yours. Yet you’re the one obsessived with bitching about Moore and have clearly put a lot of thought into your hatred, to the point that you’ve found comparisons between his work and another’s. But please, continue to throw hissy fits every time a writer doesn’t match your sensitivities.

What a strange little person you must be. Get over yourself.

LA Julian

You need to learn how to tone down your own ranting if you want to come across as the cool, condescending & superior type, instead of an inarticulate sexist troll. Get some perspective & objectivity and stop doing a Donald Duck/Yosemite Sam/Donald Trump impersonation. (How’s that for comparisons? I guess you’re going to go around shutting down everyone who compares Marvel and DC, too, right?)

Earth

Your argument is that Moore is as sexist as Frank Miller because two women in his stories are put through sexually traumatic experiences (well, one of them, but I guess nudity counts as “sexual” in your world). The fact that there are naked men in both books is irrelevant of course. Doesn’t matter that the characters are well-written, either. The fact that both are naked=sexualised. Nice of you removing Pratchett’s agency as a writer by the way, comparing his work as if it were a response to another. Figure out the difference between pastiche and parody and then maybe we might have a conversation worth discussing. You know, there’s a scene in Thud where Pratchett has two women in a sewer completely naked and covered in mud. By your logic he’s a sexist too.

I would bring up the fact that I actually find Moore’s work darkly humorous but I worry you might start crying, shocked at the idea that someone could find the idea of a woman raped by a giant swamp thing amusing.

EDIT: And there it is. A Donald Trump comparison. Do you shut down all debates this way?

Bluejay and MaryAnn both conceded that, in all likelihood, Lex knew Bruce’s identity.

I didn’t actually “concede” that to him; it was never even a point I contested to begin with. I commented earlier elsewhere that secret identities in this film are worth exactly nothing because everyone knows who everyone else is.

My point, and MaryAnn’s point, is that if Lex knows who Bruce is, it makes the film an even worse movie (as you say). And that is in fact the case. Lex DOES know who Bruce is, which makes his plots make less sense, which makes it a worse movie.

I believe Mike Grogan was confused by my (and MAJ’s) use of the conditional “if.” For someone who crows about subtlety, it doesn’t really seem to be his strong suit. And for someone who claims I haven’t moved on, he seems to be very fixated on proving his narrow point.

Bluejay

Pretty much every movie ever made has the female sex in a prominent role.

Excuse me while I go to my surgeon to repair the ribs I cracked from laughing too hard. Who’s got the “revisionist” views now?

Some movies like Cukor’s ‘The Women’ (1939) have only women and no men in them at all.

For real? The Women? Well then, I guess all Republicans are awesome forever and ever, because Abraham Lincoln.

In short, we are not missing out on nonwhite perspectives, because foreign movies are more available than ever.

Ah, here we go. You think anyone who is nonwhite is “foreign.” No need to have more Asian Americans or Latinos or black people in American films, because people can always rent films from Hong Kong and Mexico and Nigeria. Totally the same thing, right?

I don’t know why this shit superhero movie brings out all the morons. Hey, your word, not mine.

Anthony

You come across as a genuinely bitter, horrible person. Your reply makes zero sense and is devoid of any meaningful content, and you seem to think repeating sentences of mine and including your own misguided and flawed interpretation of them somehow demolishes them, leading me to suspect you are simply trolling. Or fifteen years old. Have a nice life.
P.S. If you have a problem with America’s film industry, how about you do something about it instead of lashing out at random people like moi?

Tonio Kruger

SPOILERS for V for Vendetta:

Actually, if my memory of the original V for Vendetta is correct, Evie was originally an orphaned factory worker who only turned to prostitution out of economic desperation — and because she saw some of her co-workers doing it. And it was her first attempt at prostitution, ironically, that got her in trouble with the local police — which, in turn, caused “V” to intervene in her case.

If you wish to argue that that still makes her a prostitute, then okay. But you can just as easily see her as an orphan, as a factory worker or as a woman who had the bad luck to be in the wrong place in the wrong time. And it’s not necessarily misogynistic to view her that way.

For that matter, it should be noted that many of the female characters in the Alan Moore comic book universe are not prostitutes.

Miracleman/s Liz Moran is a commercial artist, Swamp Thing‘s Abby Arcane is a nurse who spends most of the Moore run working with mentally ill children, Top Ten‘s Toybox (and indeed, most of the female characters in Top Ten) is a cop, Promethea‘s Sophie is a student…

Granted, there are obvious exceptions, and I’ll be the first to admit that I find some of Moore’s most recent work to be at best as exasperating as the average Zack Sydner movie. But then I choose to judge Moore by his best work, not his worst.

And I still have a soft spot for him based on the fact that he chose to not only give Sophie a Puerto Rican mentor but to make Sophie half-Hispanic as well. But then I’m half-Hispanic as well so I’m obviously biast — though I do find it ironic that an English comic book writer had less trouble including a fictional person of my ethnic background into his world than some American comic book writers I could mention.

Tonio Kruger

After the “success” of the Atlas Shrugged movies, I’m surprised he even bothered.

“That’s all right. I don’t need the magic phrase. But as long as we’re on the subject, have you worked it out yet?”

–Matt Ruff, Bad Monkeys

Tonio Kruger

For that matter, it’s funny that Marvel has yet to put out an Alpha Flight movie. Must be all that anti-Canadian prejudice in Hollywood because it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with its gay superhero character, right?

No major candidate has responded, “I didn’t start it!” as an actual answer on national television.

Jim Mann

Yes, they should. The Harry Potter movies make sense even if you haven’t read the books. So do the Lord of the Rings films. So do most of the Marvel films. (I’d bet that the vast majority of people who saw Guardians of the Galaxy never read the comic, and that many didn’t even know it was a comic.)

Bluejay

Your reply makes zero sense and is devoid of any meaningful content

Bless your heart. Run along now.

gRammarnazi

That because those are direct adaptations. And the Marvel movies have such little plot that it would be impossible to get lost.

“But the problem is that women are almost always supporting characters, while the characters who go on journeys are men.”
That’s kind of how the human race has worked since the dawn of time. Strip it down to the basics: men hunted, women stayed at home. The real problem is that people(generally arrogant males) tend to view women as less intelligent because of it instead of seeing them as the equally important roles that they are.
But that doesn’t mean that having women looking up to men in any scenario is instantly wrong.

Danielm80

The real problem is that people(generally arrogant males) tend to view women as less intelligent because of it instead of seeing them as the equally important roles that they are.

One way to help change that would be to make more movies in which women are fully-developed characters with an active role to play, and not just in the film to support men’s stories. It’s a better solution than saying, “That’s the way it’s always been, and there’s nothing we can do about it.”

Mike Grogan

Did you really think ad hominem was going to have a detrimental effect on me?

All it does is make my point.

Mike Grogan

You have a strange definition of moving on.

There has been no concession to the point in question, and it makes the “larger” argument moot, as one cannot correctly analyze things of which they do not understand.

Mike Grogan

And I never claimed that that’s what I believed.

Okay.

The truth is, she’s right.

You were ambiguous there. What was she right about exactly?

It can’t be that it makes no sense that Luthor and Bruce did not team up, if Luthor knew Bruce was Batman.

Your literary critique is irrelevant. What difference does it make what Luthor’s motive was. Did Norman Bates have a motive? No, he was a psycho. Seems you missed those subtle hints in BvS too. (You’re psychotic!!! That’s a three-syllable word for any thought too big for little minds.) But that is also irrelevant.

The problem you have is my theory explains what we do know, i.e. why Luthor used Wallace, why he intercepted the checks and wrote the messages, why he told Superman he was psychologically torturing Bruce (which is the coup de grace, as it is an admissions of guilt.)

If you expect me to explain Luthor’s motivations for not working with Bruce, when he knew that he was Batman, then you would have to explain why Luthor did the things he did, not knowing Bruce was Batman.

I don’t expect you to do that, as again, it’s irrelevant. However, it would be entertaining, because such an explanation would make less sense than BvS.

Bluejay

What was she right about exactly?

I explained myself perfectly fine the first time. If you can’t be bothered to reread what I wrote, I can’t be bothered to restate it.

What difference does it make what Luthor’s motive was. Did Norman Bates have a motive? … The problem you have is my theory explains what we do know, i.e. why Luthor [did X, Y and Z].

I didn’t say my theory explained Luthor’s motives, I said it explained his actions.

Have some fire, straw man.

Just out of curiosity, you do know that Luthor knew Clark was Superman, right? Or do you think that we were supposed to think Batman was sending Clark those Polaroids asking him is this justice?

So, if you never believed Luthor did not know that Bruce was Batman, then what are you arguing about?

MaryAnn’s comment was not an opinion on shitty screenwriting, it was a statement of fact that informs her interpretation of the rest of the movie. And she was wrong.

So just what the hell are you arguing about?

Bluejay

So just what the hell are you arguing about?

Subtlety seems to escape you.

MaryAnn’s comment was not an opinion on shitty screenwriting, it was a statement of fact that informs her interpretation of the rest of the movie.

You’re kidding, right? MaryAnn’s interpretation of the movie as “cold, cruel, borderline incoherent in its testosterone-fueled rage and paranoia, misogynist, paternalistic[,] fascist… [a]nd not in any way that feels good or right or even interesting” IN NO WAY hinges on whether or not Luthor knows Clark and Bruce’s identities. And yet that’s the point you keep harping on.

You’re getting tedious, kiddo, and that’s about as much effort as I want to spend on this fascinating conversation.

amanohyo

Yeah, except for Dawn of the Dead, all of Snyder’s films are shot like a perfume/luxury car commercial with the “no homo” dial turned up to 11. Sometimes it barely works (Man of Steel, opening montage of Watchmen), most of the time it feels forced and artificial (Sucker Punch, rest of Watchmen), and occasionally it becomes so ponderously corny that it slides into MST3K territory (300), but hey he’s found a style he likes that makes the studios money and he’s sticking to it.
His visuals are probably not going to develop much, but I really hope he grows a sense of humor before he finishes the JL movies… although seeing an uncharacteristically dour, hypermasculine Aquaman release a Kraken in slow motion would be pretty hilarious… all the royal women of Atlantis could stand behind him, slack-jawed in admiration, wearing bikini tops for no apparent reason while the camera freezes and rotates around the suspended waves. “This. Is. Waterrrrrr!!!!” *chuckle*

Mike Grogan

Again, you’re guilty of what you whine about.

You act as though you have made a cogent argument through your posts. Yet you try to indict me for condescension, but you were fine with all the condescension in MaryAnn’s review. So at best, your pearl clutching over condescension is selective.

Yes, the interpretation has a lot to do with the issue of Luthor knowing that Bruce is Batman. If someone cannot understand a plot point, particularly one that is spelled out, then what is their opinion about the overall work worth? They did not know what was going on in the movie. The review makes it pretty plain that this isn’t a review of a movie, so much as a pseudo sociological thesis. The problem being the author is not quite so clever or enlightened as she think she is.

Are you saying if someone misinterpreted your point, you would be fine with their critique? Well, that is pretty funny, because no such thing happened when you claimed I misinterpreted your point.

Bluejay

you’re guilty of what you whine about… you try to indict me for condescension, but you were fine with all the condescension in MaryAnn’s review.

If you’re trying to say that “I’m rubber, you’re glue” and “she started it” is the level of discourse we should expect from you, you’re doing a great job.

Also: you think her review is condescending? You keep saying that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

Are you saying if someone misinterpreted your point, you would be fine with their critique?

That depends on whether the point is relevant to the critique. And your point about MaryAnn’s critique isn’t.

Bye now. Carry on if you like; it’s interesting to see you flail. (No, not really interesting.)

Mike Grogan

If you are unable to live by a standard, then don’t expect others to live up to it. Where do you quarrel with that.

And how many times can you beg the question in one post?

I already told you why the point was relevant (and we should also quit pretending that was the only point I made). You screaming, “NUN UN!!!”, back is irrelevant.

The review is like when you speak to someone, and when they reply, you can tell they did not listen to what you said, rather they were just thinking about their reply.

And you’re okay with that. Remember that.

Jonathan Rizo

Lex knew who they(batman and superman) were from the start. Yes in the party he knows who they are…so…

Jonathan Rizo

Agreed. They are doing a Wonder Woman movie so the whole we hate girls is bs not even marvel has done that so yeah. Dc is on point.

Let’s wait and see what the Wonder Woman movie looks like before we make any conclusions about who hates girls and who doesn’t. Plenty of movies about women are also hugely condescending and misogynist (see Snyder’s *Sucker Punch,* for just one). And we’re already hearing that the WW movie will feature a protagonist who is “innocent” and “naive”… which does not sound like a very positive depiction of a millennia-old goddess.

Danielm80

You mean the movie where the Amazons are wearing tiny outfits and high heels?

Ugh! And the (female) costume designer is calling that look “appealing to women”! I’m pretty sure that is NOT who it will be primarily appealing to.

Mike Grogan

It means attacking the messenger rather than the message.

I enjoy you taking “teaming up” so literally as some cudgel to beat me with, but seriously, Luthor literally said he was manipulating Bruce into fighting Superman, but for some reason you didn’t take those words literally.

Aren’t changing standards fun?

Mike Grogan

I think they review the content of the movie, which you didn’t understand. Not some slanted “look at me I’m so enlightened” rants.

Hint: If you don’t like getting criticism, don’t dish it out. Welcome to equal treatment.

Uh… kind of. Unless I read the wrong history books. What would you have written?

Bluejay

Unless I read the wrong history books. What would you have written?

She hasn’t written any history books — I’m guessing same as you.

However, it’s possible you HAVE been reading the wrong books. Consensus among historians/anthropologists/archaeologists changes over time, with better data and bias awareness. Your thesis of “men hunted, women stayed home” is debatable to say the very least. You might want to do some more reading.

HIgh heels? the F? It’s armor not tiny outfits, they are amazons not strippers. I didn’t have any problems with WW in the movie so don’t know the hell you talking about son.

Jonathan Rizo

It’s a WW depiction and that applies to her love for Humans and all life, she has many others. I don’t even think Women are going to be the first to call out their Bs if they ruin her character. The comic book readers like me will be the first to trash the movie if they pull a damsel in distress or any other stupid cliche like they did with Lois which I’m still pissed about. That whole scene with the spear was so stupid.

While it “wasn’t a Lois Lane movie,” that doesn’t mean the part has to be thankless and relegated to a damsel in distress role. This movie evidently was supposed to have thriller elements to it, you’d think a place could be found for an investigative journalist. Compare the way the Netflix “Daredevil” uses Karen Page.

Mike Grogan

There wasn’t any ambiguity in Luthor saying he was manipulating Bruce into fighting Superman, but it was plain that Luthor did not know Bruce was Batman.

Besides, I used “team up” in the ironic sense.

Look you raging about a movie Snyder made in 2011 really explains things. Snyder cowrote Sucker Punch. He didn’t write BvS. So being pissed that he had Emily Browning and friends running around dressed like fetish models isn’t a review, it’s a vendetta.

Let it go. Stop compiling your list of grievances in the middle of the movie, so you don’t miss the actual details that need to be reviewed.

What, without a history book? But okay, I won’t be pedantic. I’m just grumbling because I’m sick to death of the gender war anyway. I like to read your reviews because you’re obviously an intelligent and experienced writer, but I dislike seeing you waste time nitpicking films for how they treat genders. I think about the characters and story. If a character is good, then it doesn’t matter if it’s a man or woman. If a character is bad, it still doesn’t matter if it’s a man or woman.
Girls don’t have male heroes, because they look up to men, they have male heroes, because they look up to the characters who just happen to be men in those particular cases. Same goes with boys. For example, in The Force Awakens, I found Rey to be by far the most relatable and fun character and I looked up to her.

“Shoving my worldview down your throat since 1997.” If it’s agressive, which it is(heck, even your description is mean-spirited), and it’s posted on the internet, which it is… then yeah, that just about sums up this website.

Danielm80

Bluejay provided you with three different links which answer your question. Have you tried reading them?

…they have male heroes, because they look up to the characters who just happen to be men in those particular cases.

The characters don’t “just happen” to be men. They’re men because the film industry is run by men, and those men actively resist telling stories about women. They also consistently refuse to hire women.

Women make up 51% of the population, but only 22% of recent movies had female protagonists:

It isn’t “nitpicking” to point that out. The movies people watch help them define what “normal” looks like. If people don’t see women in the workplace onscreen, they won’t expect to see them in real life. If the movies change, then real workplaces might start to change.

For years, movies hardly ever showed LGBT people, or they portrayed them as stereotypes and deviants. When the movies started to include better, more accurate portrayals, prejudice went down in the real world, and now gay marriage is legal.

It may not matter to you whether a character is a man or a women, but to some of us, it matters a whole lot.

I’m very sorry that someone has tied you down, propped your eyes open à la *A Clockwork Orange,* and forced you to read my work. But it’s *that* person forcing my worldview down your throat, not me. I have absolutely no power to do anything remotely like that. That tagline is sarcastic.

I’m sick to death of the gender war

As a man, that is your privilege. As a woman, I live it every day. You can turn away and it will make no difference to you. I cannot.

If a character is good, then it doesn’t matter if it’s a man or woman.

“As a woman, I live it every day. You can turn away and it will make no difference to you. I cannot.” Not if you actively hunt for it, you can’t.
But I’ll leave this discussion well alone. I don’t know your life thus I can’t make any judgments beyond my own perception. To reuse a common phrase from film history: “I hope you find whatever it is you’re looking for.” I respect you for fighting for your viewpoint, even if I don’t necessarily agree with it.

Bluejay

I can’t make any judgments beyond my own perception.

Dude, THAT’S THE KEY to beginning to understand your own male privilege, and beginning to be aware of all the stuff that it might blind you to. You have so much homework to do, but understanding the limitations of your perception (and being humble about it) is a start. Good luck.

Don’t diss people for immediately not seeing things from your POV. Like the “Jamming my world-view down your throat since 1997”. Imagine someone coming onto this site for the first time and seeing that. It doesn’t exactly scream professional. Don’t let cynicism overrun you.

bronxbee

your sarcasm/wit meter is broken, isn’t it?

Danielm80

Can you give another example of MaryAnn “diss[ing] people for immediately not seeing things from your POV”? I’m not sure I follow the point you’re trying to make.

Bluejay

Did you miss the part where MaryAnn told you that the “jamming my worldview” tagline was sarcastic? It’s a direct quote from a commenter who accused her of doing just that, and she just took it and had fun with it.

If you don’t understand exactly what’s going on, don’t assume that you do and then diss people for it.

Because you’re treating it as if it’s NOT a joke. You say she’s dissing people for not having her POV, and you use THAT TAGLINE as an example, as if she were serious about it. If you know it’s a joke, why do you have a problem with it? Why use THAT as an example of her “not having a heart”? That’s a pretty flimsy argument you got there. Got any more convincing examples of her being heartless?

Then your problem is with the people who literally believe that I am jamming anything down anyone’s throats. I am making fun of them. Just like I’m making fun of people who “accuse” me of being biased with the “biast” thing.

Anyone who doesn’t get these things probably isn’t going to enjoy my writing anyway. I have absolutely no interest in being all things for all readers.

As I’ve said already, I understand that it’s sarcasm, but it’s still mean-spirited and spiteful and that will hit people faster than the reason behind the spite.
I enjoy your writing(despite our differences), but I came here before you had that hanging over your webpage like a stormy cloud.

BraveGamgee

I’m trying to see the mean-spiritedness or spite of the tagline, and I honestly don’t see it. It just seems fun. The very idea of someone saying that they are jamming their world-view down your throat is hilarious to me, just ’cause… well… that’s not something anyone ever actually says. The idea is absurd. We usually say it in reference to other people: “So-and-so is jamming their worldview down my throat” not “I am jamming my worldview down your throat”

Danielm80

The site is called “FlickFilosopher.” People who are put off by sarcasm and intentional misspellings aren’t going to like the rest of the site, either. Think of the home page as an early warning system.

You seem to think MaryAnn’s reviews would be improved if she just got rid of the snarky comments and the feminist politics, but those aren’t minor quirks. They’re core parts of her personality. Many of her subscribers are here because we can’t find those things on other movie sites, and many of us don’t think feminism is a bad thing. If MaryAnn turned FlickFilosopher into a more generic, mainstream web page, she might gain a few readers, but she’d eliminate the entire point of the site.

bronxbee

she’s had *lots* of different descriptions in the tag line. it all depends on the idiocy that week.

DeanDouglas

Must have missed Anderson Cooper state very clearly that the work day was over and that part of Metropolis was largely vacated for the day.

I disagree — Cap’s characterization is very consistent and flows perfectly from Winter to Ultron to Civil War. If you judge based on whether his actions are “lawful good” or “chaotic good” then sure he seems to flip around, but that’s just demonstrating the woeful inadequacy of the D&D alignment system, not how Cap is written.

This Captain is loyal to friends and his sense of right and wrong, not political systems and their laws. He readily works with a team that he can trust and who he believes are doing the right thing. When they aren’t doing the right thing, or he can’t trust them, he doesn’t and instead does what he feels needs to be. He doesn’t betray the friends he disagrees with, but he doesn’t let them dictate what he should do, either. So charges in with the united team in Avengers and Ultron, but breaks off with that subset he can still trust in Winter and Civil War.

If I hadn’t seen any of these movies (or maybe just up to Avengers) and was told that the Avengers would be split over whether to submit to UN oversight, I’d have said of course Cap is on the side of law and Stark is the one that wants to remain unencumbered and been quite surprised it was reversed.

But based on the characters as developed in these movies (and it’s Stark who has changed more, though quite believably), this is the only way it could have been.

TheSeeker

Nice.

TheSeeker

It is not a bad word, it’s stigmatized by dumbass feminists who have taken things too far. I really liked the whole piss for feminism movement, it shows how stupid and easily manipulated they are.

I have to admit, I was moderately amused to see a story take advantage of the fact that early DC writers couldn’t be bothered to come up with a distinct first name for Martha Wayne. I was less amused by the fact that they had to include a headstone shot and flashback because Martha Wayne has been such a total non-entity in pretty much any movie (including Batman Begins, in which you’d think Bruce was made by cloning his father for all that his mother was there) that even some comics fans don’t know Mrs. Wayne’s first name. The world marches drearily on.